How Society, Science and Technology interact with each other

Menu

Tag Archives: rights

I, like many of you out there, are really wondering what the hell is going on right now. Has our country gone crazy? Have we elected a man that is going to bring ruin down on us all? Should we protest? Should we resist?

To put it bluntly, this is something our country hasn’t seen before. We’ve had issues before where there were disagreements over how to run the country, but there really weren’t blatant attempts to completely destroy the current political infrastructure in place. There was an implicit acceptance that while you may be a Democrat and the President a Republican, you’d still do your job and be trusted to do so. That trust has been breached. Furthermore, there were norms to ensure that the experts at least had a crack at what was going to be turned into an Executive Order, but that’s gone now too.

Our Executive Branch has gone crazy, the rest of the country hasn’t, well maybe the silent majority of the Republicans in office have, but everyone else is still doing the right thing.

You see, I think that America should be a shining light on the hill. Our ideals and values, in many ways contentious, really have the opportunity to lift people out of a rough life and into something that is greater. Right now, we aren’t even a flash light shining on a puddle of mud as a government. As a people, we’re doing right by our ideals. Protesting, one of the most American things you can do; welcoming refugees, originally, the US was founded by refugees or asylum seekers – it is only right we continue in this vein. Fighting injustice and oppression – we’ve gotten this wrong, a lot, but we also have had a history of continually moving in the right direction, despite our fits and starts. We Americans are doing this now in the face of what is only the beginning of push back from Trump.

We have a pretty clear idea of what will happen to anyone that is a government official and they refuse to obey trump. They will be fired and if possible I’m sure trump will figure out a way to prosecute that individual. Today, trump fired Sally Yates for up holding her oath as a public servant. His response is absurdly juvenile and was clearly penned by the president himself.

Trump’s note for firing Sally Yates

This is an embarrassment, but this is the type of person that we are dealing with here. I don’t think that this is even a partisan issue at this point either. When the president of the US decides that he can ignore the rule of law we’re at the point where the government itself is at risk of no longer being a democracy. I believe that we can put aside our differences here and protest together. Pushing for Mike Pence or other subordinates to impeach trump. If he is unable or unwilling, I believe that an organization like the ACLU will ultimately sue to impeach trump regardless. However, this is a time when the leaders on the right need to stand up and say, “No, country before party, we will not be pulled into a dictatorship, we are a democracy. In a democracy you must obey the rule of law.”

Should you protest, though? I think this is a really personal question, but I think that you must protest in some form or another if you want to see this stop. There are many ways to protest that don’t include holding a sign, but you must at least commit time, energy, and possibly money instead. I have already donated $20/month to the ACLU and another $10/month to an anti-corruption organization (which is non-partisan looking to elect both D and R). You can write, you can tweet, you can also run for office. There are a lot of ways to stop this, but you need to decide what you can or cannot do. For me with my travel, it’s difficult to get my bearings in whatever city I’m in to effectively protest. Instead I will write, donate, and support anyone willing to make a difference. I am also working on a podcast with a few friends. The goal, like my goal on this blog, isn’t to preach or really push my ideals, but to try to educate so you can make your own informed decisions.

So, let’s make America the shining light on the hill. Let’s fight against corruption, fight to level the playing field so that everyone has an equal chance, fight so that women feel like they have control over their own body, and to fight to make sure that we can take in those huddled masses.

I posted the following as a comment to my brother’s comment about gun control. He’s a boarder patrol agent. Basically he commented about how allowing guns (in the right hands) can save lives. He also argued that if you take guns away from most people only criminals will have them. As most of you know I love to shoot guns. I’ve shot all sorts of guns from pistols to an AR15. I think it’s fun and a good way to enjoy some time with your friends. That being said, here’s my comment to him.

“Alright, I’ve been hearing a lot about how gun control won’t fix the problem. You know I like shooting guns and do believe that we should be able to own guns. Now, I think that there needs to be some level of gun control/additional checking before gun purchases are made but I’m not exactly sure what that is. Secondly, simply saying criminals won’t follow the law isn’t a suitable answer either because there’s no completion of the thought. If criminals won’t follow the law, why are they criminals in the first place? What do we need to do to eliminate their supposed need for the gun to commit said dubious act?

I believe that to truly eliminate (or greatly reduce gun violence) we need to address the root cause, gun control alone won’t work. We have to address the reasons for the criminality. Those include, poverty, inequality, drug addiction, sale of drugs, unemployment, being a convicted felon and so on. All of these causes have significant interaction effects. You can’t separate sale of drugs from drug addiction and drug usage is higher in impoverished areas. So, this indicates to me that we need to address the root cause issue behind poverty and drugs. The extralegal crimes related to drugs include things like murder over turf wars and the sort of activities you’re involved with as a boarder patrol agent, smuggling, etc… We as a society have direct control over what is a legal and illegal drug. We have control over this – it’s a matter of do what we consider the right thing to do about drugs.

The other obvious area we need to address is mental health, which has a different root cause than the others. Many people can’t afford the mental health they need because we as a society don’t value mental health very well and many insurance companies think it’s a waste of time.

In my mind I think that if we want to address the true root cause behind gun violence we need to address poverty, drugs, and mental health. Unless you or anyone else for that matter, is willing to seriously consider fixing many of these issues, then gun control is one of the few options we have to address it. It’s a failed option from the start because it’s a band aid. In my opinion all gun advocates need to pull together and push for reform on those social issues I outlined to keep guns ownership legal as you think it should be. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat this sort of cycle.”

Yes, this is something of a rant, but I think we need to really consider what we value as a culture and how we decide to address an issue like gun control. The events at Sandy Hook and other locations in the past 2 years around the world are horrible.

This morning on KUT (local NPR station) there was a local interview between the KUT host and an author of a book that discussed how religion has been playing a larger role in the public forum in the United States and that people are basing their political stances more and more on religion. I am skeptical of this for several reasons. First, the morality these stances are based on are sometimes dubious at best even within the religious context. Secondly, some of these moral stances aren’t actually based on teachings in the specific religion, but are much more cultural in origin than religious.

Let’s look at the first issue. There are many issues that we can examine to see if the validity of the moral stance. How about the death penalty. Many Christians (not all) strongly support the death penalty. This stance clearly violates one of the Ten Commandments (thou shall not kill). Supporting this type of policy is not congruent with this belief. In addition, it conflicts with the belief that all life is sacred, which is the argument against abortion. I personally don’t agree with either stand, I’m against the death penalty and pro-choice (by which I mean I support the woman’s right to choose if she wants to be pregnant or not).

I arrived at these moral stances outside of the Christian frame work. I find that life is sacred since we only have one. Ending a person’s life for whatever reason is a horrible thing. It destroys everything that they are and could be, it destroys their potential. Now some people may think that this is ok in the case of people that are beyond help, but who defines “help”? Or perhaps it’s ok to kill people that are more committing horrible crimes against other people and they can never be reformed. Well, first there’s a lot of things we need to look at as to the why they were doing what they were doing. We should investigate what changes we can do and what sort of environment we want them to be living in after the we’ve given up on them.

In terms of abortion, it’s a trickier matter than the death penalty. However, women should have control over their on bodies and when/if they ever want to have children. Sure killing a fetus is killing a possibility, but every time a person has sex there are thousands of possibilities that are destroyed by a condom or other birth control. It’s just a matter of time and why you chose to stop the pregnancy. In some case the baby can destroy the potential of the mother or could end up being a huge drain on society. These can cause larger issues than if the fetus was aborted when the woman wanted it to be aborted.

Issues of morality may not be easy, but there are also moral issues that happen to conform to a specific outlook on life. In the case of gay marriage, this is more of a cultural issue than a religious issue. The very book that proponents quote as the reason for denying this right is ignored on a routine basis (eating shellfish is a killable offense). Marriage has long been something sanctioned by the state and has a level of cultural normalcy that has moved it from the realm of religion alone. In some states it’s possible to be married through time spent living together and getting it approved by a Justice of the Peace. Marriage is a way that cements a relationship in your own mind, the mind of your community and with the state. A civil union doesn’t have the feeling of importance and smacks of differences in rights and demotes a person to a second class citizen.

There are definitely some policy stances that could easily be seen to be rooted in religious beliefs such as supporting welfare, turning the other cheek, being a pacifist and giving your money to the poor and needy. However, there are many people that are against abortion and against welfare. These wildly different stances for a Christian smacks of a cultural belief structure driving many of these policy stances rather than their religious beliefs themselves. This doesn’t mean you aren’t a Christian or that have to be against abortion and for welfare, but it means you should be honest about the source of your morality in regard to your policy stances. You need to look inward and really investigate why you stand for something and why you’re against something. Look close enough and you may find that it’s due to your social and cultural influences rather than your religious beliefs.

According to the online magazine Techeye.net an ADSL modem/router is considered by a German court. The dispute is over if a user is allowed to install software that changes the ADSL modem’s firewall settings. It was actually a battle between two companies, the company that makes the router and the company making software for the router. I think that this ruling has some extremely interesting implications.

First, by defining a router as a computer it opens the door for a HUGE number of devices to be defined as a computer. Most of us wouldn’t think of a router as a computer. It’s a switch, it has a very specific purpose of deciding which packet gets through to the network at a given time and to prevent congestion on the network. In this case, it has the additional function of pulling out the high speed data from the phone line as well. It does have a user interface, but it’s typically restricted to a web browser. This is hardly something the average user would consider a computer. Which tells me something about the judge in the case – he understands technology and computing. The US and rest of Europe could use more judges like this.

Second, since a broad range of devices are now considered devices, at least in Germany, it could force companies to open up their hardware to user software manipulation. I see a few areas where I think this will cause major companies problems.

The first would be video game consoles. If a router is considered a computer there is no way that a company could argue that a video game console is not a computer. Consider the following, you are able to install software video games onto the console, you actually interact with an operating system, you are able to browse the internet and of course play games on the console. These are all things you are able to do on your PC. There are more restrictions on the console than the PC of course. Now, let’s say a third party company wants to come along and create something that will allow you to increase the functionality of the software or the machine in someway. In Germany, the user should have the right to do that.

The second would be cell phones. It’s pretty obvious that cellphones are computers and this ruling would just cement that. I think this will cause more problems for iOS than for Android. For two reasons, first Android already allows third party app stores onto the devices which increases the control of the end user over the computer. Second, Apple controls what software can be allowed into the app store thus controlling what a user is able to install on their computer. The German ruling basically says that a company cannot stop a user from installing software onto their computer if they want to install it. Apple and the App store are directly controlling what a user can and cannot install onto their device. I would not be surprised if this type of control is challenged in the German courts.

One other implications could be that as you own the computer user may be able to stop companies from remotely installing software onto their computer they don’t want on there. For instance, in the US it’s not uncommon for Verizon Wireless to push software out to specific devices without notifying you. You are giving implicit consent by using their networks. However, if the same thing happened to my PC from Comcast there would be a law suit. Since phones are in a weird quasi state of rights in the US there isn’t the same sort of feelings. However, I believe as the gap between PC and phones close and the desire to control what goes on the phone and what doesn’t increases there will be lawsuits over installing and deleting software from your computer.